A Reprint of “A Method of Estimating Plane Vulnerability Based on Damage of Survivors” by Abraham Wald¶
Wald, A. (1980). A Reprint of “A Method of Estimating Plane Vulnerability Based on Damage of Survivors” by Abraham Wald.
Cited by¶
3 citations across 3 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Mechanisms¶
- Blind-Zone Audit
- The reasoning is the returning-bomber logic of survivorship bias
This sourceShows how estimating vulnerability from returning aircraft requires accounting for the unobserved damage distribution among aircraft that did not return.
- The reasoning is the returning-bomber logic of survivorship bias
- Narrative Focal-Actor Audit
- Its failure mode is that the audit can only reason about what left traces at all: survivorship bias limits even the auditor, so the absence of a record is not proof of erasure any more than it is proof of insignificance.
This sourceShows how reasoning only from surviving cases produces selection bias because the non-survivors leave no observations.
- Its failure mode is that the audit can only reason about what left traces at all: survivorship bias limits even the auditor, so the absence of a record is not proof of erasure any more than it is proof of insignificance.
- Survivorship Bias Audit
- Its strength is catching the error no amount of within-funnel analysis can see: survivorship bias, the mistake of drawing conclusions from the survivors while the failures — which carry most of the signal — are invisible.
This sourceCRC 432. Center for Naval Analyses (1980). Shows that damage observed only on surviving aircraft must be corrected for the unobserved aircraft that failed to return.
- Its strength is catching the error no amount of within-funnel analysis can see: survivorship bias, the mistake of drawing conclusions from the survivors while the failures — which carry most of the signal — are invisible.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Not recorded. Neither this nor any other of the 3 citations of this work carries a recorded support check.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:bd2cc154a447 · see in the full table